I will never forget when I first heard that Google had adopted “Don’t be evil” as its motto. My first thought was: Spare me the self-righteousness, please. My second thought was that such a holier-than-thou statement could only come from a couple of immature kids who were infected with that horrific moral disease known in finer circles as “absolute moralitis.”

Thus, it was easy for me to translate Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto into “We intend to be evil.” And evil they’ve been, so much so that the company’s nefarious track record has finally caused the powers that be to take notice. There is little argument that the most powerful company in the history of the world is determined to silence conservative viewpoints while elevating those espoused by the Radical Left.

The Google brouhaha has reminded me that at the top of my list of pet peeves are those pompous souls whose words make it clear they believe they are morally superior to mere mortals like you and me. I’m talking about the sanctimonious individuals who seem never to tire of pounding their chests and lecturing us with childish, hollow statements about such topics as “love” and “truth.”

The idea of “do as I say” love has become so pervasive that even President Trump blurted out, during one of his visits to Texas, “We must all love each other.” I realize that politics is 99.99 percent B.S. and that Trump has a scary habit of spewing out dumb comments without thinking, but this particular statement made him sound very much like members of the fascist left who seem intent on wanting to force us to say and do what they believe is right.

As the great David Seabury so eloquently stated, “Love is not so simple and malleable as many suppose. Put it in prison and it dies. Restrict it and it turns into hate. Force it and it dis­appears. You cannot will love, nor even control it. You can only guide its expression. It comes or it goes according to those qualities in life that invite it or deny its presence.”

Ayn Rand put it in even simpler terms when she explained that if you love everybody, it only serves to diminish the value of your love. Love should be reserved for special people in your life, those whom you most admire and respect. If you “love everybody,” those whom you care about most are not likely to place a very high value on your love.

People who incessantly talk about how “we must all love each other” would do well to read The Road Less Traveled, by M. Scott Peck. A psychiatrist by training, Peck wrote extensively about love, opining that most people do not understand what it entails.

For example, Peck believed that when people say they love their dog, they are unwittingly mischaracterizing their feelings. As he put it, you cannot love your dog or cat or any other pet; you can only cathect a pet. Love involves admiration and respect, feelings you can have only for another human being. (Yes, I know I’ll get a lot of blowback on this, but, nevertheless, it’s true — and, I might add, self-evident.)

Which brings me to the world’s most talented lost soul, Glenn Beck, and his latest revelation about finding his true purpose in life … again. With his company in crumble mode, Beck, in a tear-jerking article, wrote that his purpose is “clearer today than it has been in years: Love, Courage, Truth.”

Of course, bipolar Glenn has made similar statements many times in the past, but it’s clear that none of his declarations has ever succeeded in fulfilling his “true purpose.” I will disregard the word courage as a purpose, because it is totally nonsensical in such a context. But when people start loosely throwing around words like love and truth in conjunction with purpose, it’s time to be alert.

Beck’s insatiable thirst for the praise of his followers may yet drive him insane … hmm … make that more insane. When he tosses around words like love and truth, make no mistake about it, he’s talking about his idea of love and his idea of truth.

As well-meaning as he may be, Beck is the epitome of an absolute moralist. He even went so far as to plead with people not to vote for Donald Trump for the sake of his children. I’ll never be able to figure out why he wasn’t smart enough to say “our children,” but I think it was just an offshoot of his absolute morality.

Beck is in bad company on this one, because the Radical Left’s modus operandi has long been to lecture fellow citizens about such personal virtues as love and truth while at the same time practicing hatred and violence and spreading the most vicious lies imaginable on a daily basis.

The lesson from all this is simple: When politicians and pinheads make stupid statements like “We all have to come together and love each other,” your best bet is to ignore everything that follows. If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, bandying about words like love and truth might be the first.

Come to think of it, make that the second. The first refuge is when someone adopts a ridiculous, self-righteous motto like “Don’t be evil.” Thanks, Google, for the reminder.

+Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

42 responses to “Don’t Be Evil”

You are completely on target with this. My hope lies in the fact that the left is showing such violence and intolerance that the people in the middle see it. After all one needs to win two o the three major groups to win election – the middle plus either the left leaning or right leaning. And the Dems are losing the middle with their more extreme elements showing the middle who they are – violent and intolerant. And every time I hear someone explaining who they "are not" or making statements telling me how honest or good they are my radar for lies and danger to myself goes on full alert. Thanks for your keen observations

I also did not trust the “Don’t be evil” motto of Google. The recent firing of an employee for merely questioning a hiring policy shows how far they have sunken into this morass of supposed moral superiority.

I am reminded of a quote by H. L Mencken:

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

Hah! I've always "liked" Glenn Beck from a distance for having, according to his accounting, overcome alcoholism and taken responsibility for his earlier-life failings, including a failed marriage. His one great contribution to my inner debate on matters of faith is posing the question (not posed by Glenn, but by observation of him) as to whether the Holy Spirit can inspire a devout Morman. I continue to wonder about this privately and with no intended offense to Mormons or non-Mormans and receiving no final answer, with all sincere due respect.
.
Having said all of this, I have pulled for Glenn Beck to succeed with full knowledge that he's …. crazy. But if he is crazy, then he can join the brotherhood of humanity that is crazy on a spectrum of very mild crazy to batsheet crazy. He's not mild crazy, but I do wish him the very best.
.
And I whole-heartedly agree with the observation of current moralism that has no foundation from which to moralize.

I agree with your overall theme, but think "love" is much too complicated for an essay of this length.

There are so many kinds and degrees of love and so many interpretations of love. For instance, I have an elderly neighbor who thinks "love" can only be sexual – so the old fool has never been able to tell his own kids that he loves them. He needs a new word.

You WILL get blow-back on the dog comment, because many of us DO love our dogs – and I, for one, do admire and respect them. They know and sense things I don't know – like if a person is not to be trusted. They also have qualities of trust and loyalty that I admire greatly.

I also love the view out my window and the luxury of taking an afternoon nap – and that's a completely different kind of love than the kinds I feel for my dogs, my husband, my children, and the friends I value.

Do I love all humans – no way! I can't even say I value all humans, nor can I agree with Trump when he says "All lives matter." No – I can think of many lives the world would be better off without. Serial killers, rapists, and others who seek only to harm and destroy come to mind.

Nah. Sorry, Marte; but you're dabbling in semantics to make a counterpoint. Though I am in sympathy with your sentiments, I gotta tell you you're standing on quicksand, semantically and philosophically. When one debates a master in the realms of realism and human nature it's generally best to defer to other masters' well founded thoughts and not proffer one's own subjective preferences. The Bible is very instructive in this area and informs us, unequivocally, what love is and is not. RR's thoughts on this matter stand solidly on the bedrock of authoritative, time-tested philosophical grounds. Peace. d

Daniel, who died and made you the absolute authority on the subject? Your comment is dripping with arrogance. I admire RR as much as anyone, he is one of my greatest heroes, but I would never demean him with such blatant suck-uppery.

"Maybe it has always been true, but it seems like we live in an age of esoteric language or pseudo-language. Everyone is familiar with the gag of using “undocumented worker” in place of “illegal alien.” Janitors became sanitation engineers and teachers are now educators. It’s a part of how the American Left makes war on our civilization. By destroying the language they destroy the truth. If words no longer have common and concise meanings, then there is no truth, only force.

There’s another aspect to this. The Progs create pleasant sounding phrases and neologisms that are packed with danger. It’s a natural outgrowth of the passive-aggressive tactics popular with the Progs. The new word or phrase is not intended to clarify or explain idea, but to warn people that the official truth has been decided and any further debate will be seen as a challenge. As everyone knows, the Left responds to a challenge with violence so the new phrase means “shut up or else.”

With that in mind, a running list of words and phrases, that have a more ominous meaning beyond the literal, seems like a good project. This will be one of those posts that could be updated over time both for entertainment purposes and to build out a comprehensive language guide for the normie trying to navigate his way through the theocracy. Perhaps one day some smart crime thinker will create a mobile app, like a universal translator, for normal people to use when dealing with HR or reading a mainstream news site."

"Have a conversation: Whenever you hear someone say they want to have a conversation about something, what they mean is they want to shut down all debate and impose their will with regards to the subject. Having a conversation about marriage led to the end of the homosexual marriage debate in favor of the sodomites. Having a conversation about race means Progs screaming at white people about racism and white privilege. Having a conversation always means sitting through a lecture.

Secure the border: Whenever the topic of immigration comes up, someone will start chanting about the need to secure the border. The reason for this is so they can avoid talking about immigration, without looking soft on immigration. What they really mean when they use this phrase is they have no interest in the topic and you’re a racist for bringing it up, but they’ll throw you a bone just to shut you up.

Here’s What You Need To Know: This is a favorite of female millennial writers, who imagine themselves as brilliant because they got a gold star from their lefty teachers in school. It’s a phrase that sets themselves up as the arbiter of what is and what is not worth knowing about a topic. Unsurprisingly, what never needs to be known is anything that contradicts the one true faith. As soon as you see this in a post, it means that what you need to know is they are right and shut up.

Conservative Principles: Alternatively, “first principles” or “principled conservative.” The Conservative Industrial Complex loves throwing this around to benefit themselves and damage anyone questioning their project. As soon as you hear Official Conservatives™ talking about their principles, it means they are either about to throw in with the Left against you or they are preparing to surrender on some cultural issue.

Fact Check: The lefty scolds love this phrase. They fact check the crap out of everything, except their own beliefs. Those are off limits because you’re a racist. As soon as you see this phrase, you should assume that what comes next is some senseless nitpicking that let’s them dismiss anything they find unpleasant. For instance, when a normal person says migrants suck off the welfare system, they will “fact check” this and claim that “not that many” migrants go on welfare. So, you’re a bigot and shut up.

Inclusive: This means normal people need not apply. Something that is inclusive is something that excludes the things normal people consider to be normal. A club that is inclusive, for example, will be full of homosexual males, blue haired lesbians and people with fashionable mental disorders. Inclusive is code for fringe weirdos only"

You've made some excellent points, RS, to solidy RR's foundation in the article. I love some of the specific "buzz phrases" you list, as many of them have me retching on a regular basis, when spewed from arrogant, elites of the "progressive" regime that have managed to have a stranglehold on the culture. Race and gender identity are the two most common "conversations" these moralists want to have, and of course, they mean they KNOW what is right and moral, and ALL other opinions are disgusting and do not count, and will be met with violence if persisted.

RealitySeeker on "Inclusive". I was thinking the very same thing as you about that term a few weeks back. "Inclusive" is anything but inclusive. It is "exclusive". It is not what it claims to be. It is a term originated by and perpetrated by the Radic-Libs who incidentally have been recently promoted to Social Justice Warriors and ANTIFA. "Inclusiveness" is for anyone who fits into the Radic-Lib mold: liberals, communists, democrats (all three the same), SJWs, ANTIFA, racial minorities, women (the Radic-Lib variety as in "feminists"), LGBT, drug addicts, welfare bums, immigrants, illegal aliens, etc., etc., etc. All others are excluded and declared non-existent and orphaned.

My sentiments exactly, and you know if anyone tried to minimize and downplay them, they would be the first to be organizing protests to be heard. But antifa shouting down and shutting any ideology that don't agree with, is a okay. jOHN Stossel impersonation here, GIVE ME A BREAK.!!

It's actually a brilliant motto. We thin with our conscious minds which pass commands to the subconscious mind. The challenge here is that the subconscious doesn't understand negation and therefore ignores it. The resulting instruction to the nervous system is "be evil". In this way, scores of people can be led to do wrong en masse while believing all along in their own virtue and magnanamousness. Those who would control the masses understand this well.

This one struck a nerve with me. When I first went into foster care at age 15, my foster family kept telling me how much they loved me. Being a logical, analytical sort, I sensed something was amiss right away. How could they love me when they had just met me and knew next to nothing about me? I mean, I KNEW my parents loved me (before they died) but these people? I figured they may or may not be nice people but I certainly didn't love them. Even at that age, I sensed they just needed to feel good about the "wonderful" thing everyone was praising them for doing … taking in that poor orphan girl. Ugh. And my assessment turned out to be right. That "love" went right out the door every time I behaved less than perfectly. Personally, I use the word sparingly these days.

What a great article by a great writer. In it we have "absolute moralism" right out of "Looking Out For Number One". Plus we have Ayn Rand, and last but not least, David Seabury who wrote "The Art of Selfishness"! Glad to see these folks around again.

About Donald Trump. I like Donald Trump. I supported Donald Trump and still do. I voted for Donald Trump. He is the best President this country has ever had. But I think that, sometimes, his mouth tends to go off, just a little bit, before his brain is in gear. He has been tossing that word "love" around like a frisbee in a schoolyard. Lately, he commented about those who have partaken in DACA in that he "loves the Dreamers". Does he know these folks personally? Are they friends of his?

Google provides a good product, but they need to quit toying with the Radical Left and Radic-Libism. They need to straighten their act up and act right and quit acting stupid!

They do appear to have gone Maoist and Marxist for sure, and have been known to suppress stories on their web search they don't approve of, plus being a tax cheat and owe the EU billion plus dollars. Sounds evil to me.

Whenever you say "I love you", you really mean "I love me". Love is only a mirroring feeling. So you can declare it to whoever or whatever. The same applies to the stupid question "How much do you love me?". My answer has always been to show my thumb and index hard pressed against each other because infinity can be extremely small !!! Maybe Diogenes is my master.

Poor Robert! I suspect you haven't spent much quality time around pooches. (Which is vastly different than merely "owning a dog.")

I absolutely admire my dog. He's mostly self-sufficient, self-motivating, and even self-cleaning! He does not distort his feelings, or lie about his desires. He's amazingly athletic, and he hears, smells, and sees better than any human alive. He won't screw-over other dogs for a percentage. He's funny, and attracts the attention of vast numbers of human women when we visit Home Depot. And the list goes on and on.

My wife and I have a despicable neighbor. We both agree that we would forfeit our neighbor's life before that of our dog's, and in a heartbeat. And for those who would claim that even an evil human life takes precedence over a sweet dog's life, regardless of the circumstances, I say: "You better hope you're not that neighbor."

You say that I'm confused when I say, "I love my dog" … that I "cathect." (Eye roll.) I say that, when it comes to love, YOU'RE the one who's confused — confused about all that love can encompass.

Condemning absolute moralitis while proclaiming absolute rules on who/what can be loved seems to be something of a contradiction Mr Ringer.

And then other commentators state that the Bible provides support for such a viewpoint when Jesus surely went to his agony for the sake of unconditional love for ALL of us including some very unlovely humans.

Don't mistake my point. I see the need for the Left to be put down as hard as it takes to destroy their evil. But it is possible to love and know that a course of action, no matter how unpleasant, has to be taken because –as humans–we have no other choice.

Much like Nixon had an enemy's list, so do the Clintons. And the target is any Trump voter. They honestly believe that cause a few hundred or few thousand who are right wing or KKK and or Neo Nazi who voted Trump, have yet to ever run into one of this trio by the way, that all Trump voters are that way.

My decision on the election was based no party should be in POTUS for more than 8 years, and who caused less human misery, Trump or Hillary?. As SOS, Hillary caused a lot what happened in Syria, a half million dead and 5 million refugees to mostly Europe.

As far as anyone reading or making comments on Breitbart is now sexist, racist or Xenophobic and deserves to be doxxed and their employer told, and this has happened to me, give me a break sounds like a bunch of tattletales who are trying to shutdown a number of constitutional rights of privacy, free speech and freedom of assembly. Mainstream media is nothing but a shill for Democrats.

And all this time I thought I had found true love in this special relationship I built upon, for years. caring for my Dog. I thought dogs were heavenly creatures sent to earth by God (GOD-DOG) to teach us love.
Still, I have read the article, and all the comments, and strangely, one word is absent from all contributions…and it is commitment. To commit. To commit, according to Ghemawat, a spiritual child of Micheal Porter, is the core strategy of business success…but could it also be the root of love, isn't Love the best strategy for us human beings. Commitment gives me hope because as I commit to my dog (Cyrano is his name), I learn. Isn't learning about the other, and which helps us learn about ourselves, the true nature of love (and this is why I can love a rock…or Newton an apple falling on his head…), and since we are the result, our experience on earth is the result, of many different sciences, they are as many forms of love, and many facets to learn about others and ourselves. In Spanish the word love and quest are synonyms, Quiero…I am searching you…so they were in Old Engish…
And this why, this morning, I looked Cyrano in the eyes, and I plainly told him:"Cyrano, you make me want to be a better person…".
But there is more hope for love on a blog like this than on CNN, and if you hurt me and I hurt you occasionally, but despite this, I persist in truly listening, and you do to, then this must be "some kind" of love…

"Love involves admiration and respect, feelings you can have only for another human being." I disagree. People love their new born babies without having admiration or respect for them. Humans can admire and respect animals. Some have beauty and strengths that we admire and if you do not respect can get you killed.